The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label IRS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IRS. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Karl Rove And His Faux Tax-exempt Status

Karl Rove via ProPublica


         


New Tax Return Shows Karl Rove’s Group Spent Even More On Politics Than It Said 




On its 2012 tax return, GOP strategist Karl Rove’s dark money behemoth Crossroads GPS justified its status as a tax-exempt social welfare group in part by citing its grants of $35 million to other similarly aligned nonprofits. (Here’s the tax return itself, which we detailed last week.)

The return, signed under penalty of perjury, specified that the grants would be used for social welfare purposes, “and not for political expenditures, consistent with the organization’s tax-exempt mission.”
The transaction also provides a window into one way social welfare nonprofits work around the tax code’s dictate that their primary purpose cannot be influencing elections.  Grants sent from one nonprofit to another may be earmarked for social welfare purposes, but sometimes end up being used to slam or praise candidates running for office.
“They have a bad grantee here,” said Marcus Owens, the former head of the IRS’ Exempt Organizations division, who looked at the documents at ProPublica’s request. “My question would be, ‘What has Crossroads done to recover that money?’ That’s what the IRS would expect.”
Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio did not respond to questions from ProPublica about Americans for Tax Reform’s use of the grant or whether Crossroads would ask for it to be refunded.
Instead, Collegio wondered whether Americans for Tax Reform could have used resources carried over from 2011 to fund the 2012 election spending, rather than money from Crossroads. “Were resources carried over from 2011?”  he asked in an email to ProPublica.
But after consulting with tax experts, ProPublica determined Americans for Tax Reform couldn’t have used resources from 2011 for the political spending.
“That’s called bullshit with a serving of horseshit on the side,” Owens said.
Americans for Tax Reform reported a total of $10.3 million in assets in the beginning of 2012. Of those assets, $8.2 million was only available on paper, an amount due from a related charity, the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation. The rest –$2.1 million – was a combination of equipment, leasehold improvements, cash holdings, net accounts receivable, prepaid expenses and deferred charges. None of those amounts changed significantly by the end of 2012. In other words, the only known source for the money Americans for Tax Reform spent on politics was donations from Crossroads and others.  
Collegio didn’t respond to an email from ProPublica last Wednesday outlining how some of the Crossroads’ grant had to have been spent on election activities.
John Kartch, the spokesman for Americans for Tax Reform, also didn’t respond to ProPublica questions about the use of the Crossroads grant for politics.
Social welfare nonprofits, also known as dark money groups because they don’t have to report their donors, are allowed to spend money on politics as long as their primary purpose is social welfare. The groups often count so-called issue ads that stop short of advocating for or against a candidate and grants toward that social welfare mission. Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision allowed corporations and unions to spend directly on election ads, these nonprofits have turned into the vehicle of choice for anonymous spending, dumping more than $254 million into the 2012 elections.
Of the 150 or so social welfare nonprofits that reported spending to the Federal Election Commission during the 2012 election cycle, Crossroads was king, the biggest anonymous spender by far. Americans for Tax Reform came in fourth, with $15.8 million.
On its 2012 tax return, made public last week, Crossroads said it gave its biggest grant,$26.4 million, to Americans for Tax Reform for “social welfare.”
In the last part of 2012, Americans for Tax Reform told the FEC it spent repeatedly on ads and mailers$15.8 million altogether on so-called “independent expenditures,” mostly in the month before the election, opposing Democrats and supporting Republicans running for Congress. (Independent expenditures tell people they should vote for or against a certain candidate.) Most of that money, more than $10.7 million, was for media buys, to purchase air time on TV and radio for various ads. More than $1.6 million went to designing, producing and sending mailers. Most of the rest of the money went to ad production and phone banks. (Here are some examples of those ads.)
Americans for Tax Reform told the IRS in its tax return, obtained and made public by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), that it raised and spent about $31 million in 2012. Since the group got $26.4 million from Crossroads, only $4.6 million of its revenue came from other donors. At least $11.2 million of Crossroads money had to go toward the political ads reported to the FEC.
That means Americans for Tax Reform spent about 51 percent of its money on political ads reported to the FEC in 2012.
But the group also told the IRS on its tax return, signed under penalty of perjury, that it spent only $9.8 million on direct and indirect campaign activity in 2012, defining that spending as “engaged solely in the making of independent expenditures supporting and opposing candidates for federal office.”
Last Tuesday, CREW filed a complaint with the IRS and the tax division of the Department of Justice against Americans for Tax Reform and its president, Grover Norquist, alleging they deliberately provided false information to the IRS in the tax filing.
ProPublica and others have documented how such groups often minimize their political spending to the IRS. Although the IRS has been hesitant to establish any so-called “bright lines” for campaign activity, campaign finance and tax lawyers say independent expenditures reported to the FEC definitely qualify as political spending under the tax code.
Crossroads GPS itself counted all of its independent expenditures reported to the FEC in both 2010 and 2012 as part of its political spending reported to the IRS.
“Clearly, ads that tell people who to vote for or against are campaign intervention,” said a Congressional Research Service report on IRS rules on political ads prepared for Congress in August 2012. Last summer, the IRS told social welfare nonprofits that wanted to expedite their approval that political expenditures included administrative and overhead costs, and any expenditure on printed, electronic or oral statements supporting or opposing the election or nomination of any candidate for public office.
Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor and associate dean at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in nonprofits and campaign finance, reviewed the Americans for Tax Reform documents at the request of ProPublica and said it was possible that the group was allocating overhead or other costs differently in its tax return than in its FEC filings.
“I do not see how any reasonable allocation differences could result in such a large disparity, however,” Mayer said.
Owens, the former IRS official, said it was possible that some of the media buy money reported to the FEC was later refunded by the TV stations. But even that money wouldn’t account for such a large gap, he said. Owens speculated that Americans for Tax Reform might have determined that some of its ads wouldn’t qualify for reporting to the IRS.
 “There’s just no way that could withstand scrutiny under the laws that exist,” Owens said. “What you have is two documents from the same group, one for the FEC and one for the IRS, both submitted under penalty of perjury. At least one is incorrect.”
Still, on Tuesday, Kartch insisted the $9.8 million figure on Americans for Tax Reform’s tax form, known as a 990, was correct, while ignoring requests from ProPublica to explain how it was derived.
“The correct number to use here is the $9.8 million figure as reported on our 2012 990, not the number you cite from an FEC report,” Kartch wrote. “ATR meets or exceeds the requirements of the FEC and the IRS according to their standards.”
He also scoffed at the CREW complaint, saying, “This attack is political and CREW knows it is nonsense.”
It’s not clear how the IRS might respond to the apparent misuse of the Crossroads grant or to the fact that Americans for Tax Reform seems to have underreported its political spending.
Complaints to the IRS about the tax-exempt status of Crossroads and other political social welfare nonprofits have been made since 2010, but they are still pending. So is an earlier CREW complaint against Americans for Tax Reform for its spending in 2010. A scandal that erupted in May over the IRS targeting the applications of Tea Party and other conservative social welfare nonprofits may have also made the IRS more likely to take a hands-off approach to the groups, experts say.
“They’re going to keep their heads down,” Owens said.
Update: The Center for Responsive Politics also wrote about Americans for Tax Reform using the Crossroads GPS grant for politics on Nov. 18
.
StumbleUpon

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

The Money Trails And Buying Your Politics

         

We are going to post the following table with minimum dialog. As you view the table, it will not take much to realize dialog beyond our normal railing about money in politics, is unnecessary.

While both sides of the isle accept contributions from businesses, individuals and PACs, the upper most part of the table will tell all. It tells of why the IRS may have first focused on conservative (appearing)  organization names applying for tax free status. 

There are two things endemic to conservative giving. They never want their identities reveled (after the very visible plutocrat Kochs) and they abhor the responsibility of paying taxes. They do not want to pay taxes even if it means buying votes. 


This story reminds of a segment I watched on CNN yesterday. Apparently, Disney World (Disney) is revising a policy of allowing disabled quick access to its theme park rides and exhibitions. Can you guess why? Wealthy people were reported to seek-out and pay disabled people to pretend they were families members so the wealthy did not have to wait in line. I assume Disney would not undertake such a public policy if they knew of an isolated case. DAMN!

Open Secrets Dot Org and the Center for Responsive Politics.


Political Nonprofit Spending Since 2008: Politicization Rankings

Political spending by nonprofits has exploded since the Supreme Court's decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC decision, issued during the 2008 cycle. This influx of nonprofit spending correlates directly with the increase in "dark money" from unknown sources in federal elections because the vast majority of nonprofits aren't required to -- and don't -- disclose their donors. This page is the first systematic attempt to pull together data the groups report to the IRS and the FEC to compare the overall spending of politically active nonprofits in a given year, as well as the proportion of spending devoted to activities meant to influence, directly or indirectly, the outcome of elections.  

See Table and more after the break below

StumbleUpon

Monday, September 16, 2013

Open Secrets: Dark Money


The following is a re-blog from Open Secrets Dot Org.  

The piece is as relevant to US politics and US society as state and federal government.  Money is flowing into US politics at an alarming and dangerous rate.  Ultimately, lobbying dollars and political contributions work for business entities and special interest groups. There are few to no organizations, which pour money into Congress on behalf of "The People." It just does not happen comparable to money funneled to support 360 degree wealthy accumulation by the nation's Top 20% (ers). 

As is the case with all 'high information", the following is not a quick read.  Of course, we are aware, people really do not like long reads. Well, there are times when our tendencies contribute to "low information." Do you want to live your life as do most Fox News viewers? How about Beck viewers and listeners?  Or, better yet, people who visit Breitbart News Dot Com and actually feel they are being informed vs. entertained.  In fact, entertainment and political posturing is the basic media model for each of the three entities. 

Open Secrets, nor  do we have an answer to the horrors of purchased legislation, purchased votes, and purchased politicians However, we feel an obligation to inform. When information flows, good things eventually happen. What we do know is Citizens United open a door that leads to nothing the horrors of plutocracy. As the IRS attempted to investigate the legitimacy of the Citizens United money flood, it became immersed in conservative, "hands-off" our SCOTUS decision rhetoric  that lingers even today. 

Update, Sept. 11: For clarity, we have added two paragraphs to this story (see *) explaining that the IRS and FEC definitions of political spending are not identical, and have rephrased headlines to two charts.

Building on our previous work on "dark money" nonprofits, the Center for Responsive Politics is rolling out new information on the activities of these groups that are playing an increasing role in U.S. elections. 

Dark money groups -- politically active 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and 501(c)(6) trade associations that, under tax law, don't have to disclose their donors -- aren't supposed to spend the majority of their resources on politics. But over the last six years, a combination of Supreme Court decisions that loosened restrictions on their electoral activity, coupled with regulatory confusion, has led to a surge in their political expenditures. Direct spending on federal elections by 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) groups has risen from $10 million in 2004 to well over $300 million in 2012 -- and that's just counting what they reported to the Federal Election Commission, which doesn't include all of their political spending.

And the nature of their activity has changed in recent elections. Nearly half of the political spending by these groups in 2004 went for communications to their own members -- what the FEC calls "communication costs." Now, it shows up almost entirely in the form of negative, often misleading ads aimed at influencing the outcome of elections. In 2012, only 2 percent of the spending by these groups was directed at their own members. 

StumbleUpon

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Open Secrets Sheds Light On Political Non Profits

What do Germany, Colombia, Ireland, Mexico, Georgia, Indonesia, Macedonia, and Serbia have in common? According to the nonprofit global governance watchdog Global Integrity, they all beat out the United States on regulating money in politics. - See more at: http://unitedrepublic.org/u-s-flunks-corruption-indexs-money-in-politics-test/#sthash.UYbFqZiX.dpuf



Do you recall the major issues surrounding the revelations of IRS scrutiny of non-profit 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)? You recall, I am sure. An Open Secrets look at the issue is available (below).

While the revelations initially appeared and sounded like a nefarious plot against conservative organizations, the issue later fizzled like Benghazi, Fast and Furious and Issa's embarrassment based on his failures as a GOP hit-man.  The unsettling revelations eventually proved to have been exaggerated. The director of the IRS field office responsible for investing initial request for non-profit tax status held a piece of information. Information that could be called a secret if the information been intentionally held. The man is a Republican appointed by George W. Bush!  Moreover, we have recent revelation liberal and progressive organizations received like investigations and were required to answer same or similar questions.

Now let's "walk-the-plank" regarding alleged IRS heavy handed investigations of Right-wing non-profit groups. The Citizens United Decision was issued in 2010 certainly factored into the workload of the Cincinnati Ohio Field Office.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 24, 2009
Reargued September 9, 2009
Decided January 21, 2010
Full case nameCitizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
Docket nos.08-205
Citations558 U.S. 310 (more)
130 S.Ct. 876
Prior historydenied appellants motion for a preliminary injunction 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)[1] probable jurisdiction noted 128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008).
ArgumentOral argument
ReargumentReargument
Opinion AnnouncementOpinion announcement
Holding
A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
Court membership
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV)
ConcurrenceRoberts, joined by Alito
ConcurrenceScalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part)
Concur/dissentStevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Concur/dissentThomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures bcorporationsassociations, orlabor unions
transparent
.....The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4]The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5]

The IRS field office was inundated with request. Since the Right has a tendency to label their PACs and contribution entities with what they perceive as patriot names, reports were the organizations drew early scrutiny. It should be noted, not one organization, progressive or conservative, was denied the desired tax status.



OpenSecrets.org published a quick view set of charts  related to nonprofits. (Don't miss both links (Types and Viewpoint)

Political Nonprofits

Politically active nonprofits -- principally 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)s -- have become a major force in federal elections over the last three cycles. The term "dark money" is often applied to this category of political spender because these groups do not have to disclose the sources of their funding -- though a minority do disclose some or all of their donors, by choice or in response to specific circumstances.
These organizations can receive unlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions that they do not have to make public, and though their political activity is supposed to be limited, the IRS -- which has jurisdiction over these groups -- by and large has done little to enforce those limits. Partly as a result, spending by organizations that do not disclose their donors has increased from less than $5.2 million in 2006 to well over $300 million in the 2012 election.


Special credit to and mention of the Center for Responsive Politics. 
The information is no surprise.  Citizens United was to be a gold mine for conservative paths to the White House. Actually, contributions to Democrats outpaced Conservative contributions.  But, what do conservatives hate more than President Obama? They detest paying taxes. They will contribute at gross levels, but do not ask them to pay taxes to support their desire for a plutocracy. 
StumbleUpon

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Open Secrets Blog: Top Political Contributions and IRS Code Classifications

OpenSecrets.org - Center for Responsive PoliticsWould you like a look at how Citizens United has influenced US politics?  Maybe, just maybe, you might come away from the embedded OpenSecretsBlog tables with an understanding of why the IRS would spend extra effort in attempts to validate non-profit status of many organizations. It should not take a major Einstein 'mental epiphany' to see how and why organizations,  sanctioned by Citizens United and facilitated via flawed IRS codes, would draw IRS analyst attention.  

If you have followed news this week, you may know that Elijah Cummings (D) Md. has released the full transcript of Oversight Committee hearings on the IRS alleged scandal that was not a scandal.  As you view the tables below, keep in mind the 501(C)(4) is the code that led to heightened IRS scrutiny of Citizens United induced potential for tax evasion. 

A bit of research will yield findings indicating groups in the table are not all "conservative." 

IRS CODE Reference Chart

1986 CodeDescription of OrganizationGeneral nature of activitiesApplication Form No.Annual return required to be filedContributions allowable
501(c)(1)Corporations Organized Under Act of Congress (including Federal Credit Unions)Instrumentalities of the United StatesNo FormNoneYes, if made for exclusively public purposes
501(c)(2)Title Holding Corporation For Exempt OrganizationHolding title to property of an exempt organization10249901 or 990EZ8No2
501(c)(3)Religious. Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary. Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals OrganizationsActivities of nature implied by description of class of organization10239901 or 990EZ8, or 990-PFYes, generally2,3
501(c)(4)Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of EmployeesPromotion of community welfare; charitable, educational or recreational10249901 or 990EZ8No, generally2,3
501(c)(5)Labor, Agricultural, and Horticultural OrganizationsEducational or instructive, the purpose being to improve conditions of work, and to improve products and efficiency10249901 or 990EZ8No2
501(c)(6)Business Leagues, Changers of Commerce, Real Estate Boards, Etc.Improvement of business conditions of one or more lines of business10249901 or 990EZ8No2

Note: For groups that want to be politically active, alternative corporate structures are available, such as super PACs and "527" groups -- and those groups aren't limited to spending just 49.9 percent of their resources on politics. However, they are required to disclose their donors. 

Political Nonprofits: Top Donors


These are the top donor organizations to politically active 501(c) nonprofits -- or, rather, these are the donors the Center for Responsive Politics has been able to identify. Groups on the receiving end aren't required to publicly reveal who their contributors are. However, 501(c) groups must disclose the names of organizations to which they make donations. By sifting through hundreds of 990 tax forms, where the disclosure occurs, we have come up with this list.

Other donors -- such as individuals and corporations -- aren't required to publicly report such gifts, so the sources of much of the money flowing to politically active tax-exempt groups remain unknown.
OrganizationParentTotalType
Center to Protect Patient Rights$55,740,985c4
Sea Change Foundation$26,986,150c3
Crossroads GPSCrossroads GPS/American Crossroads$13,875,000c4
TC4 Trust$11,787,800c4
Donors Trust$8,832,250c3
Republican Jewish Coalition$8,000,000c4
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America$7,100,000c6
Green Tech Action Fund$5,775,300c4
Advocacy Fund$5,632,488c4
Alliance for Freedom$4,190,000c4
Wellspring Cmte$4,078,182c4
National Christian Charitable Foundation$3,740,405c3
America's Families First$3,144,000c4
Partnership Action Fund$3,098,854c4
America Votes$2,791,000c4
American Justice Partnership$2,667,500c4
Annual FundWellspring Cmte$2,034,191c4
Schwab Charitable Fund$1,916,649c3
Patriot Majority USA$1,757,500c4
John William Pope Foundation$1,475,000c3
Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation$1,303,720c3
CitizenlinkFocus on the Family$1,250,103c4
Sierra Club$1,167,500c4
American Future Fund$1,026,200c4
Edgar & Elsa Prince Foundation$776,000c3
Claude R Lambe Charitable Foundation$504,725c3
Family CoalitionBerman & Co$500,000c6
Open Society Institute$468,883c3
Richard & Helen DeVos Foundation$400,000c3
United Steelworkers$397,500c5
Community Foundation Serving Richmond & Central VA$350,250c3
Proteus Fund$350,000c3
American Farm Bureau$315,000c5
Dunn's Foundation for Advancement/Right Thinking$270,000c3
Americans for Limited Government$250,000c4
Cornerstone Action$243,000c4
American Action Network$200,000c4
Energy Foundation$190,000c3
Campaign for Community Change$154,074c4
Alliance Defense Fund$125,000c3
Wisconsin Bankers Assn$125,000c6
US Charitable Gift Trust$111,706c3
Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Foundation$101,000c3
James & Judith K Dimon Foundation$100,000c3
Castle Rock Foundation$100,000c3
EL Craig Foundation$100,000c3
Farago Foundation$100,000c3
Florida Liberty Fund$100,000527
Marcus Foundation$100,000c3
Mississippi Common Trust Fund$100,000c3
One Jerusalem$94,500c4
American Petroleum Institute$75,000c6
Internet Innovation Alliance$65,000c6
Palladium Foundation$60,000c3
Greater Houston Community Foundation$60,000c3
American Natural Gas Alliance$60,000c6
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce IssueWisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce$57,600c4
Citizens for a Strong America$51,617c4
Alliance for America's Future$50,000c4
Robert K Steel Family Foundation$50,000c3
UPS Foundation$25,000c3
Americans for Tax Reform$25,000c4
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn$25,000c6
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.
Now take a look at the same table sorted by "Type.
OrganizationParentTotalType
Florida Liberty Fund$50,000527
Sea Change Foundation$29,986,150c3
Donors Trust$8,834,250c3
National Christian Charitable Foundation$3,765,405c3
Alliance for Climate Protection$2,755,800c3
Schwab Charitable Fund$1,941,649c3
John William Pope Foundation$1,475,000c3
Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation$1,323,720c3
Edgar & Elsa Prince Foundation$776,000c3
Claude R Lambe Charitable Foundation$504,725c3
Open Society Institute$468,883c3
Richard & Helen DeVos Foundation$400,000c3
Community Foundation Serving Richmond & Central VA$350,250c3
Proteus Fund$350,000c3
Dunn's Foundation for Advancement/Right Thinking$270,000c3
Energy Foundation$190,000c3
Alliance Defense Fund$125,000c3
US Charitable Gift Trust$111,706c3
Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Foundation$101,000c3
Farago Foundation$100,000c3
James & Judith K Dimon Foundation$100,000c3
Marcus Foundation$100,000c3
Mississippi Common Trust Fund$100,000c3
Castle Rock Foundation$100,000c3
EL Craig Foundation$100,000c3
Joe & Mary Moeller Foundation$75,000c3
American Values$62,500c3
Greater Houston Community Foundation$60,000c3
Palladium Foundation$60,000c3
Robert K Steel Family Foundation$50,000c3
Center for Independent Thought$45,000c3
UPS Foundation$25,000c3
Center to Protect Patient Rights$55,515,985c4
Crossroads GPSCrossroads GPS/American Crossroads$13,875,000c4
TC4 Trust$11,932,800c4
Republican Jewish Coalition$8,000,000c4
Advocacy Fund$6,068,488c4
Green Tech Action Fund$5,775,300c4
Free Enterprise America$5,057,000c4
Wellspring Cmte$4,478,182c4
Alliance for Freedom$4,190,000c4
America's Families First$3,144,000c4
Partnership Action Fund$3,098,854c4
American Justice Partnership$2,872,500c4
America Votes$2,065,113c4
Annual FundWellspring Cmte$2,034,191c4
Patriot Majority USA$1,757,500c4
Freedom & Values Alliance$1,715,346c4
CitizenlinkFocus on the Family$1,250,103c4
Sierra Club$1,167,500c4
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce IssueWisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce$1,045,600c4
American Future Fund$653,700c4
Center for American Progress Action Fund$500,000c4
New Models$387,500c4
Republican Governors Public Policy CmteRepublican Governors Assn$335,948c4
Progressive Future$265,000c4
Americans for Limited Government$250,000c4
Cornerstone Action$243,000c4
Partnership for America$220,112c4
American Action Network$200,000c4
Club for Growth$198,386c4
Campaign for Community Change$154,074c4
One Jerusalem$94,500c4
MyWirelessOrgCellular Telecom & Internet Assn$85,000c4
Greater Wisconsin Cmte$74,000c4
American Commitment$70,250c4
Faith & Freedom Coalition$60,000c4
Citizens for a Strong America$51,617c4
Alliance for America's Future$50,000c4
Western Skies Coalition$31,000c4
Americans for Tax Reform$25,000c4
United Steelworkers$397,500c5
American Farm Bureau$315,000c5
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America$8,300,000c6
Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care$750,000c6
Family CoalitionBerman & Co$500,000c6
Wisconsin Bankers Assn$416,600c6
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn$225,000c6
American Petroleum Institute$175,000c6
Motion Picture Assn of America$125,000c6
AGC Public Awareness & Advocacy Fund$100,000c6
Internet Innovation Alliance$65,000c6
American Natural Gas Alliance$60,000c6
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.

We believe OpenSecrets is unparalleled in their efforts to help the informed follow the money. Their detailed work helps you and me see the impact on the money on legislation. 



If you closely follow OpenSecrets tracking you will see clear evidence that the majority of members of Congress march the drum beat of organizations which buy votes as a corporate strategy.
StumbleUpon